Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1887-11-16
SPARKS VERSUS LAMAR.
THE LAND COMMISSIONER GIVES HIS
SIDE OF THE CASE.

WASHINGTON CRY, Nov 6.-Commission-
er Sparks, of the general land office, late
Tuesday afternoon rendered his resignation
to the president Accompanying his resig-
nation was the following letter in response
to the recent letter of Secretary Lamar, ad-
dressed to him:
"To THE PRESIDENT: The honorable secre-
tary of the interior advises me, by letter
dated the nth inst. in effect that he should,
on that date, present to you the alternative
Of selecting new secretary OF the interior
or a new commissioner Of the general land
office, in view Of which have felt called
upon to address you this letter.
"Uuder the authority vested in the commits
soner by the laws, and in accordance with
regulations and practice pursuant to law, by
which action is first taken in the general
land Office l had, previous to September,
1887, made adjustments OF certain railroad
land grants, two of which, known as the
Omaha cases, had been specially directed
by the secretary to report
"On Oct Z, 1887, two decisions of the sec
rotary were rendered in the Omaha cases.
non-concurring in my adjustments, and over
ruling the authority on which they were
based. He directed me at the same time to
cause the grants to be adjusted in conformity
with said decisions. | now infer from his
published letter that these decisions were not
approved by the official law adviser for the
department Of the interior.
"The point at issue related to the claim OF
railroad companies to indemnity for lands
that, under railroad granting acts, were re-
served from the operation of those acts by
express terms of the statutes. Previous to
1875 lands that had been reserved by the gov
ernment for Indian and other purposes, and
which were excluded from the grants and
from the separation of the granting acts had
been patented or certified TO the companies,
both as granted land and as indemnity, pro-
miscuously with other lands This seems to
to have been done in pursuance of practice
OF giving railroad companies whatever they
asked for, apparently without much consid-
GRAFTON of the restrictions and limitations of
the grants
"The secretary held in the Omaha cases
| that the company was entitled to in
demnity for such lands. This decision, if adj
hered to, will have the effect to take from
the people many million acres of land within
railroad indemnity limits, which, by your
advice and with your approval as expressed
| in the Guilford Miller case have been pro-
| claimed to the country as restored to the
public domain. The question of the correct
ness of these decisions became, therefore, a
matter of momentous concern. If they cor
| rectly declared the law, these lands belong
to the railroad companies. If they did not
correctly declare the law, the lands belong to
the people. 1t appeared to me
that the rule of statutory interpreta-
| ton adopted in the Omaha cases was the op-
| posite OF the rule of construction adopted by
| the courts and laid down by law-writers
was therefore profoundly convinced that the
secretary had been committed to errors of
law which, if brought fully to his attention,
might be corrected.
at is the practice of the department TO
permit representatives of railroad companies
and other private interests to apply for re-
views and reconsiderations of decisions when
questions are decided against such interest is.
believed that as the officer of the govern
ment having immediate guardianship of the
public lands, and immediate charge of the
issuance of patents under all grants Of land
by congress, l had at least equal right
with representatives of private interests to ask
the secretary of the interior to re-examine q
departmental decision And l believed
it especially proper to express my views tc
the secretary in these cases. because had
not done so in the original instance but
would have if had anticipated change Of
ruling and decision upon the point in ques-
ton Accordingly l waited upon the secre
tary, and personally expressed to him my
desire to have review of the decisions in
these cases He suggested to me to let thu
matter rest for the present, in which sug
gestion l, of course, cheerfully acquiesced
The formal application for review, couchet
in the most respectful terms, was completed
. about Oct u, but was not put upon the off
cial records, and was not made public o.
Nov. 10 received a note from the secretar,
desiring me to present to him what had t,
say upon this subject. My letter was accord
ingly signed and delivered to him on the It'd
inst. with necessary change of date and othe
corrections that had been made. copy o
/, this letter is herewith inclosed for your in
spection and for your judgment both upol
substance of matter and upon official courte
sy of form and expression. Several impor
! tant questions were decided in the Oman,
cases other than the one referred to here
in, which Justly call for considera
: ton upon the point of agreemen
r with or contravention of decisions O
the supreme court of the United States, bu
| confined my application for review to tn
question of indemnity for lands exclude
, from the operation of the granting acts tina
being of overshadowing Importance.
"In presenting this application informe
the secretary that it would not be made pub
lie unless by himself Public attention haS
ing now been called to the matter, sha
feel at liberty to furnish the press with a cop
Of this letter after it has been communicate
to you and a copy transmitted to him
at is but Just to say that the publshs
communication addressed to me and laid be
fore you is no answer to my letter applyin
J for review. The issue raised by me wa
strictly one OF law. The presentation of til
, issue was strictly in the line of legal argl
ment. In the letter addressed to me that il
J sue is not met and the effect has been to CT,
: ate the erroneous impression that the issu
} was one of authority alone, and that l ha
, refused to execute the sscretary's official o.
: ders This diversion of the issue, from on
of legal construction to one of authority an
} INSTRUMENTATION, is the substitution of fore
, for argument; diversion of the public min
|
sisted by me in this presentation to yol
: would be the suppression by that fort
, of a proper and considerable effort Q
t my part, as the commissioner of IL
, general land Office, to secure in the publ
: interest, an impartial hearing before Il
secretary of the interior on a purely leg
question affecting the administration tt
} office with which I am charged.
"The office of commissioner of the gener
/ land office has been one of intense labo
- imposing constant ser of high respon:
i bility. Having sought IL at your hand ! ha'
= continued to hold 1t only out of a sense
7 duty, with a view of effecting some good
l the public have endeavored to dischar,
5 my full duty In it In the face Of many di
5 couragements and much calumny and abu
r from those whose interests were to defsl
r the policies pursued. ! have believed m
( line of action to be correct, znd thought hs
! reason for the belief that 1t met you q
8 prevail %
"If these decisions foreshadow change
D official policy on this subject, knowing WI
. what this will mean in practical application
could not, OF course, with my sense of dut
! be the instrument to effect the change.
; Having ever as now regarded the col
5 mission hold from you as subject to yo
: recall, and desiring to relieve you of any pc
; sible embarrassment, herewith tender "
3 my resignation OF the office of commission
of the general land office, and ask its ear
nection with your administration beg